歸類、估價和原產地是世界各國海關的徵稅基礎， 與之相對應， 世界海關組織（WCO）設有歸類、估價和原產地三大技術委員會， 研究審議相關技術疑難問題。
2017年10月24日， 世界海關組織（WCO）估價技術委員會第45次會議審議通過中國海關提交的“轉移定價案例”（英語、法語和西班牙語三種語言）文本， 正式成為WCO指導性檔“案例研究14.2”。
這是中國海關估價案例首次被WCO採納， 是中國海關為國際海關估價規則貢獻的第一份“中國方案”， 這份具有里程碑意義的WCO中國案例， 將為世界海關對跨國公司轉移定價審查提供指導意見。
案例順應國際海關估價發展時代要求
近年來跨國公司轉移定價問題越來越成為世界海關共同面臨的新挑戰， 成為當前WCO開展估價疑難技術研究的熱點。 中國海關代表在WCO估價技術委員會會議上， 針對部分國家海關提交的關聯交易及轉移定價案例， 多次做出精彩評論， 展示在轉移定價領域的深入研究和豐富實踐， 得到各國代表和WCO秘書處的好評， 因此， WCO秘書處建議中國海關提交有關再銷售價格法的轉移定價估價案例。
中國海關估價技術委員會（國際組）為此組織案例的起草撰寫， 旨在說明海關根據《海關估價協定》條款1.2（a），
案例通過審議歷經多輪質詢論證
案例從2014年5月WCO估價技術委員會第38次會議上首次提交， 到2017年10月第45次會議審議通過， 歷時3年半8次會議討論。 期間， 中國海關估價技術委員會（國際組）全程跟進， 充分利用歷次審議會議休會期開展集中工作， 彙聚集體智慧， 根據前方參會代表傳回的質疑積極準備回應對案， 並結合會議討論不斷修訂、完善。 在WCO會議多輪審議中， 參會代表積極解答與會代表質疑， 多角度陳述估價技術意見， 消除誤解， 澄清事實， 贏得與會各方肯定， 最終使得“中國方案”成為國際海關估價指導案例。
案例研究14.2
根據《協定》條款1.2（a）審查關聯交易時
對轉移定價報告的使用
概要
本案旨在說明海關根據《協定》條款1.2（a）， 如何參考企業轉移定價報告及其他相關資訊，
該案例不表明、不喻示也不確立海關在解釋或使用《WTO估價協定》時有義務使用《OECD轉移定價指南》及據其形成的材料。
交易事實
位於X國的XCO， 向位於I國的ICO銷售奢侈品牌手袋。 ACO是一家跨國公司總部， 也是奢侈品牌手袋的品牌所有方。 XCO與ICO均為ACO的全資子公司。 XCO或ACO的關聯企業均未向I國非關聯方銷售相同或類似奢侈品牌手袋。 ICO是XCO向I國銷售奢侈品牌手袋的唯一進口商。 因此， ICO進口至I國的所有奢侈品牌手袋均採購自XCO。
2012年， ICO根據XCO出具的發票價格申報了進口奢侈品牌手袋的價格。 ICO向I國海關提交的貿易單證顯示， 不存在《協定》第1條（a）至（c）款所規定的無法使用成交價格的特殊情況， 也不存在第8條所規定的需要對進口價格進行調整的價外支付等情形。
2013年，因對ICO的申報價格存在懷疑，I國海關對ICO申報的進口價格進行審核。ICO轉移定價政策顯示，所有奢侈品牌手袋的進口價格是根據《OECD轉移定價指南》使用再銷售價格法制定的。每年年末，ICO根據XCO的建議預估下一年度進口手袋的轉售價格及預期毛利率。2012年，ICO的預期毛利率確定為40%，隨後ICO根據再銷售價格法計算公式得出進口奢侈品牌手袋的進口價格：進口價格=預期轉售價格x（1-預期毛利率）/（1+稅率）。
ICO是一家簡單分銷商或稱常規分銷商。進口手袋在I國的市場行銷策略由XCO制定，同時XCO也對ICO的庫存水準提出建議，確定建議轉售價格及相關折扣政策。XCO在與手袋相關的高價值無形資產方面投入巨大。因此，XCO承擔了I國手袋銷售相關的市場風險和價格風險。
作為進口貨物轉售所在國，I國的奢侈品牌手袋市場競爭激烈。然而，2012年，由於全價銷售的手袋數量高於預期，折扣價銷售數量少於預期，ICO的實際銷售收入遠超預計。因此，ICO2012年的毛利率達到64%，高於ICO轉移定價政策的預期毛利率。在價格審核過程中，海關要求ICO提供更多資訊以審核進口申報價格的合理性。
ICO並未根據《協定》條款1.2（b）和（c）舉證測試價格，以證明關聯關係未影響價格。然而，ICO提交了一份轉移定價報告，使用再銷售價格法將ICO的毛利率與可比公司在非關聯交易（即可比非受控交易）中的毛利率進行比較。該轉移定價報告是由一家獨立事務所依照《OECD轉移定價指南》做出的。
根據轉移定價報告，ICO不擁有任何高價值的、獨特的無形資產或承擔任何重大風險。ICO提交的轉移定價報告選取了位於I國的8家可比企業。功能分析顯示這8家企業自X國進口可比產品、承擔類似功能及類似風險，且與ICO一樣，不擁有任何高價值的無形資產。
轉移定價報告顯示可比公司2012年的毛利率符合公平交易原則（四分位元）的合理區間為35%-46%，中位值為43%。因此，ICO 64%的毛利率並未落在合理四分位區間內。海關開展價格審核時，ICO並未就此進行任何轉移定價調整。
問題
本案例中轉移定價報告所提供的資訊，是否足以使海關根據《協定》第1條審查確定進口貨物實付或應付價格是否受到雙方特殊關係影響？
分析
依據《協定》第1條，如買賣雙方無特殊關係，或存在特殊關係，但並未影響價格，則成交價格可接受為完稅價格。在買賣雙方存在特殊關係的情況下，《協定》條款1.2提供了海關在對申報價格存疑時審查確定成交價格可否接受的兩種方法：（1）審查銷售環境以確定特殊關係是否影響成交價格（條款1.2 (a)）;或（2）進口商證明申報價格接近三種測試價格中的任一價格（條款1.2 (b)）。
本案中，如第6段所述，進口商未提供測試價格，因此海關開展銷售環境審查。
《協定》條款1.2注釋提出，在審查銷售環境時，“海關需要審查交易的有關方面，包括買賣雙方組織其商業關係的方式和制定價格的方法，以便確定特殊關係是否影響價格。”
在使用再銷售法審核相關企業的銷售環境時，將該企業與可比企業的毛利率進行對比，可以說明申報價格的制定是否與所涉產業的正常定價慣例相一致。
根據功能分析，ICO與所有8家可比企業無明顯差異，因為這些可比企業：
-均位於I國；
-與ICO類似，承擔類似分銷功能和類似風險，不擁有任何高價值的無形資產；
-進口的可比產品同樣是在X國製造的；
此外，對產品的可比性也進行了審查，相關可比企業符合海關估價要求。
根據轉移定價報告，可比公司年毛利率的合理四分位區間在35%-46%，中位值為43%。然而，2012年，ICO64%的毛利率遠高於該行業可比企業的正常毛利率。還需要指出的是，I國奢侈品牌手袋市場競爭充分。因此，由於ICO與8家可比公司無顯著區別，其營業利潤與費用應與可比公司類似。所以，ICO2012年的高毛利率與其功能、資產和風險不相符。
由於ICO獲取了更高的毛利率，且考慮到ICO未作出任何補償性調整，海關從而得出結論，即相關進口價格的制定與行業正常定價慣例不一致。ICO 2012年的進口貨物完稅價格申報偏低，應依次使用其他估價方法進行估價。
結論
海關根據《協定》條款1.2（a）,通過審核轉移定價報告對ICO與XCO的交易開展銷售環境審查後得出以下結論：進口申報價格的制定與行業內正常定價慣例不一致，因此受到買賣雙方特殊關係影響。由此，完稅價格應依次使用其他估價方法予以確定。
需要指出的是，評論23.1中強調：利用轉移定價報告審查銷售環境應當具體個案具體分析。
CASE STUDY 14.2
USE OF TRANSFER PRICING DOCUMENTATION WHEN EXAMINING RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS UNDER ARTICLE 1.2 (a) OF THE AGREEMENT
Introduction
1. This document describes an example of a case where Customs took into account information provided in a company’s transfer pricing report, as well as additional information, when determining whether or not the price actually paid or payable for imported goods had been influenced by the relationship between buyer and seller under Article 1.2 (a) of the Agreement.
This case study does not indicate, imply, or establish any obligation on Customs authorities to utilize the OECD Guidelines and the documentation resulting from the application of the OECD Guidelines in interpreting and applying the WTO Valuation Agreement.
Facts of Transaction
2. XCO of country X sells luxury bags to ICO, a distributor of country I. Both XCO and ICO are wholly-owned subsidiaries of ACO, the headquarters of a multinational enterprise and the brand-owner of the luxury bags. Neither XCO nor other companies related to ACO sell the identical or similar luxury bags to unrelated buyers in country I. ICO is the only importer of the luxury bags sold by XCO to country I. Thus, all luxury bags imported into country I by ICO are purchased from XCO.
3. In 2012, ICO declared the price of imported luxury bags based on the value on the invoice issued by XCO. The commercial documents submitted to Customs of country I indicated that there was no special circumstances or additional payments which would prevent the use of the transaction value as set out in subparagraphs (a) to (c) of Article 1 of the Agreement or require an additional adjustment prescribed by Article 8 to the import price.
4. In 2013, Customs in country I conducted a Post-Clearance Audit to verify ICO’s declared import price, because it had doubts about the acceptability of the price. ICO’s transfer pricing policy showed that the import price of all luxury bags was determined using the Resale Price Method (in accordance with the Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations of the Organization for the Economic Cooperation and Development). At the end of each year, ICO estimated the resale price of the bags and the targeted gross margin for the next year as recommended by XCO. After the targeted gross margin for 2012 was determined at 40 %, ICO then calculated the import price of luxury bags to be imported in 2012 by using the Resale Price Method according to the formula: Import Price = Estimated Resale Price x (1 – Targeted Gross Margin) / (1 + Duty Rate).
5. ICO is a simple or routine distributor. The marketing strategy for the sales of bags in country I is in fact established by XCO. XCO also advises on the levels of inventory to be maintained, and establishes the recommended sales price of the bags sold by ICO, including the discounting policy to be used by ICO. XCO has also invested heavily in developing valuable intangible assets associated with the bags. As a result, XCO assumes the market risk and price risk in relation to the sales of the bags in country I.
6. The luxury bag market of country I where the imported goods were resold has been very competitive. However, in 2012, the actual sales income of ICO far exceeded the estimated income since more bags were sold at full price, and fewer at a discounted price, than anticipated. Consequently, ICO’s gross margin in 2012 was 64 % which was higher than the targeted gross margin stated in ICO’s transfer pricing policy. During the audit, Customs asked ICO to provide further information in order to review the acceptability of its declared import price.
7. ICO did not provide test values required for the application of Article 1.2 (b) and (c), as a means of demonstrating that the relationship did not influence the price. However, ICO submitted a transfer pricing report, which used the Resale Price Method that compared ICO’s gross margin with the gross margins earned by comparable companies in their transactions with unrelated parties (i.e. comparable uncontrolled transactions). The transfer pricing report was prepared by an independent firm following the process set out in accordance with the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines.
8. According to the transfer pricing report, ICO does not employ any valuable, unique intangible assets or assumed any significant risk. The transfer pricing report submitted by ICO eight comparable companies located in country I. The functional analysis indicated that the eight selected comparable companies imported comparable products from country X, performed similar functions, assumed similar risks and did not employ any valuable intangible assets, just as ICO.
9. The transfer pricing report indicated that the arm’s length (inter-quartile) range of gross margins earned by the selected comparable companies in 2012 was between 35 %-46 %, with a median of 43 %. Therefore, the 64 % gross margin earned by ICO did not fall within the arm’s length inter-quartile range. At the time Customs conducted its valuation audit, it was established that，in this particular case, ICO had not made any transfer pricing adjustments in this regard.
Issue for Determination
10. Does the transfer pricing report, supplied in this case, provide information which enables Customs to conclude whether or not the price actually paid or payable for the imported goods is influenced by the relationship of the parties under Article 1 of the Agreement?
Analysis
11. Under Article 1 of the Agreement, a transaction value is acceptable as the Customs value when the buyer and the seller are not related, or if related, the relationship does not influence the price. Where the buyer and seller are related, Article 1.2 of the Agreement provides two ways of establishing the acceptability of the transaction value when Customs have doubts concerning the price: (1) the circumstances surrounding the sale shall be examined to determine whether the relationship influenced the price (Article 1.2 (a)); or (2) the importer demonstrates that the value closely approximates one of three test values (Article 1.2 (b )).
12. In this case, as indicated in paragraph 6, the importer did not provide test values therefore Customs examined the circumstances surrounding the sale.
13. The Interpretative Note to Article 1.2 of the Agreement provides that in examining the circumstances surrounding the sale, “the customs administrations should be prepared to examine relevant aspects of the transaction, including the way in which the buyer and the seller organize their commercial relations and the way in which the price in question was arrived at, in order to determine whether the relationship influenced the price.”
14. When examining the circumstances surrounding the sale concerning companies using Resale Price Method, a comparison of the gross margin of the company in question with the gross margin of comparable companies could indicate whether or not the declared price had been settled in a manner consistent with the normal pricing practices of the industry.
15. Based on the functional analysis, there was no significant difference between ICO and all eight comparable companies because these comparables:
-are all locate in country I;
-perform similar distribution functions, assume similar risks and do not employ any valuable intangible assets, which are similar to ICO;
-import comparable products similarly manufactured in country X ;
In addition, an adequate level of product comparability was observed and these comparable companies are deemed to be suitable for Customs valuation purposes.
16. According to the transfer pricing report, the arm’s length inter-quartile range of the gross margin earned by the comparable companies was between 35 %-46 % with a median of 43 %. However, in 2012, ICO earned a gross margin of 64 % which was much higher than the normal gross margins of comparable companies in this industry. It should also be noted that the luxury bag market of importing country I was competitive, so that the operating profit and expenses of ICO should be similar to those of the comparable companies given that there was no substantial difference between ICO and the eight comparable companies. Therefore ICO’s high gross margin in 2012 was not commensurate with its functions, assets and risks.
17. Thus, by virtue of ICO earning a higher margin, and considering ICO has not made any compensating adjustments, Customs arrived at the conclusion that the import price was not settled in a manner consistent with the normal pricing practices of the industry in question. The Customs value of goods imported in 2012 had been declared at a lower price and should be re-determined accordingly by application of the alternative methods of valuation in a sequential order.
Conclusion
18. In examining the circumstances surrounding the sale between ICO and XCO under the provisions of Article 1.2 (a) of the Agreement through the review of the transfer pricing report, Customs concluded that the declared import price was not settled in a manner consistent with the normal pricing practices of the industry and thus had been influenced by the relationship between the buyer and seller. Therefore, the Customs value should be determined by application of the alternative methods of appraisement in a sequential order.
19. It should be noted that the use of a transfer pricing report as a possible basis for examining the circumstances surrounding the sale should be considered on a case by case basis as specified in Commentary 23.1.
供稿（圖）：關稅司、深圳海關
編輯、發佈：高揚
也不存在第8條所規定的需要對進口價格進行調整的價外支付等情形。2013年，因對ICO的申報價格存在懷疑，I國海關對ICO申報的進口價格進行審核。ICO轉移定價政策顯示，所有奢侈品牌手袋的進口價格是根據《OECD轉移定價指南》使用再銷售價格法制定的。每年年末，ICO根據XCO的建議預估下一年度進口手袋的轉售價格及預期毛利率。2012年，ICO的預期毛利率確定為40%，隨後ICO根據再銷售價格法計算公式得出進口奢侈品牌手袋的進口價格：進口價格=預期轉售價格x（1-預期毛利率）/（1+稅率）。
ICO是一家簡單分銷商或稱常規分銷商。進口手袋在I國的市場行銷策略由XCO制定，同時XCO也對ICO的庫存水準提出建議，確定建議轉售價格及相關折扣政策。XCO在與手袋相關的高價值無形資產方面投入巨大。因此，XCO承擔了I國手袋銷售相關的市場風險和價格風險。
作為進口貨物轉售所在國，I國的奢侈品牌手袋市場競爭激烈。然而，2012年，由於全價銷售的手袋數量高於預期，折扣價銷售數量少於預期，ICO的實際銷售收入遠超預計。因此，ICO2012年的毛利率達到64%，高於ICO轉移定價政策的預期毛利率。在價格審核過程中，海關要求ICO提供更多資訊以審核進口申報價格的合理性。
ICO並未根據《協定》條款1.2（b）和（c）舉證測試價格，以證明關聯關係未影響價格。然而，ICO提交了一份轉移定價報告，使用再銷售價格法將ICO的毛利率與可比公司在非關聯交易（即可比非受控交易）中的毛利率進行比較。該轉移定價報告是由一家獨立事務所依照《OECD轉移定價指南》做出的。
根據轉移定價報告，ICO不擁有任何高價值的、獨特的無形資產或承擔任何重大風險。ICO提交的轉移定價報告選取了位於I國的8家可比企業。功能分析顯示這8家企業自X國進口可比產品、承擔類似功能及類似風險，且與ICO一樣，不擁有任何高價值的無形資產。
轉移定價報告顯示可比公司2012年的毛利率符合公平交易原則（四分位元）的合理區間為35%-46%，中位值為43%。因此，ICO 64%的毛利率並未落在合理四分位區間內。海關開展價格審核時，ICO並未就此進行任何轉移定價調整。
問題
本案例中轉移定價報告所提供的資訊，是否足以使海關根據《協定》第1條審查確定進口貨物實付或應付價格是否受到雙方特殊關係影響？
分析
依據《協定》第1條，如買賣雙方無特殊關係，或存在特殊關係，但並未影響價格，則成交價格可接受為完稅價格。在買賣雙方存在特殊關係的情況下，《協定》條款1.2提供了海關在對申報價格存疑時審查確定成交價格可否接受的兩種方法：（1）審查銷售環境以確定特殊關係是否影響成交價格（條款1.2 (a)）;或（2）進口商證明申報價格接近三種測試價格中的任一價格（條款1.2 (b)）。
本案中，如第6段所述，進口商未提供測試價格，因此海關開展銷售環境審查。
《協定》條款1.2注釋提出，在審查銷售環境時，“海關需要審查交易的有關方面，包括買賣雙方組織其商業關係的方式和制定價格的方法，以便確定特殊關係是否影響價格。”
在使用再銷售法審核相關企業的銷售環境時，將該企業與可比企業的毛利率進行對比，可以說明申報價格的制定是否與所涉產業的正常定價慣例相一致。
根據功能分析，ICO與所有8家可比企業無明顯差異，因為這些可比企業：
-均位於I國；
-與ICO類似，承擔類似分銷功能和類似風險，不擁有任何高價值的無形資產；
-進口的可比產品同樣是在X國製造的；
此外，對產品的可比性也進行了審查，相關可比企業符合海關估價要求。
根據轉移定價報告，可比公司年毛利率的合理四分位區間在35%-46%，中位值為43%。然而，2012年，ICO64%的毛利率遠高於該行業可比企業的正常毛利率。還需要指出的是，I國奢侈品牌手袋市場競爭充分。因此，由於ICO與8家可比公司無顯著區別，其營業利潤與費用應與可比公司類似。所以，ICO2012年的高毛利率與其功能、資產和風險不相符。
由於ICO獲取了更高的毛利率，且考慮到ICO未作出任何補償性調整，海關從而得出結論，即相關進口價格的制定與行業正常定價慣例不一致。ICO 2012年的進口貨物完稅價格申報偏低，應依次使用其他估價方法進行估價。
結論
海關根據《協定》條款1.2（a）,通過審核轉移定價報告對ICO與XCO的交易開展銷售環境審查後得出以下結論：進口申報價格的制定與行業內正常定價慣例不一致，因此受到買賣雙方特殊關係影響。由此，完稅價格應依次使用其他估價方法予以確定。
需要指出的是，評論23.1中強調：利用轉移定價報告審查銷售環境應當具體個案具體分析。
CASE STUDY 14.2
USE OF TRANSFER PRICING DOCUMENTATION WHEN EXAMINING RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS UNDER ARTICLE 1.2 (a) OF THE AGREEMENT
Introduction
1. This document describes an example of a case where Customs took into account information provided in a company’s transfer pricing report, as well as additional information, when determining whether or not the price actually paid or payable for imported goods had been influenced by the relationship between buyer and seller under Article 1.2 (a) of the Agreement.
This case study does not indicate, imply, or establish any obligation on Customs authorities to utilize the OECD Guidelines and the documentation resulting from the application of the OECD Guidelines in interpreting and applying the WTO Valuation Agreement.
Facts of Transaction
2. XCO of country X sells luxury bags to ICO, a distributor of country I. Both XCO and ICO are wholly-owned subsidiaries of ACO, the headquarters of a multinational enterprise and the brand-owner of the luxury bags. Neither XCO nor other companies related to ACO sell the identical or similar luxury bags to unrelated buyers in country I. ICO is the only importer of the luxury bags sold by XCO to country I. Thus, all luxury bags imported into country I by ICO are purchased from XCO.
3. In 2012, ICO declared the price of imported luxury bags based on the value on the invoice issued by XCO. The commercial documents submitted to Customs of country I indicated that there was no special circumstances or additional payments which would prevent the use of the transaction value as set out in subparagraphs (a) to (c) of Article 1 of the Agreement or require an additional adjustment prescribed by Article 8 to the import price.
4. In 2013, Customs in country I conducted a Post-Clearance Audit to verify ICO’s declared import price, because it had doubts about the acceptability of the price. ICO’s transfer pricing policy showed that the import price of all luxury bags was determined using the Resale Price Method (in accordance with the Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations of the Organization for the Economic Cooperation and Development). At the end of each year, ICO estimated the resale price of the bags and the targeted gross margin for the next year as recommended by XCO. After the targeted gross margin for 2012 was determined at 40 %, ICO then calculated the import price of luxury bags to be imported in 2012 by using the Resale Price Method according to the formula: Import Price = Estimated Resale Price x (1 – Targeted Gross Margin) / (1 + Duty Rate).
5. ICO is a simple or routine distributor. The marketing strategy for the sales of bags in country I is in fact established by XCO. XCO also advises on the levels of inventory to be maintained, and establishes the recommended sales price of the bags sold by ICO, including the discounting policy to be used by ICO. XCO has also invested heavily in developing valuable intangible assets associated with the bags. As a result, XCO assumes the market risk and price risk in relation to the sales of the bags in country I.
6. The luxury bag market of country I where the imported goods were resold has been very competitive. However, in 2012, the actual sales income of ICO far exceeded the estimated income since more bags were sold at full price, and fewer at a discounted price, than anticipated. Consequently, ICO’s gross margin in 2012 was 64 % which was higher than the targeted gross margin stated in ICO’s transfer pricing policy. During the audit, Customs asked ICO to provide further information in order to review the acceptability of its declared import price.
7. ICO did not provide test values required for the application of Article 1.2 (b) and (c), as a means of demonstrating that the relationship did not influence the price. However, ICO submitted a transfer pricing report, which used the Resale Price Method that compared ICO’s gross margin with the gross margins earned by comparable companies in their transactions with unrelated parties (i.e. comparable uncontrolled transactions). The transfer pricing report was prepared by an independent firm following the process set out in accordance with the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines.
8. According to the transfer pricing report, ICO does not employ any valuable, unique intangible assets or assumed any significant risk. The transfer pricing report submitted by ICO eight comparable companies located in country I. The functional analysis indicated that the eight selected comparable companies imported comparable products from country X, performed similar functions, assumed similar risks and did not employ any valuable intangible assets, just as ICO.
9. The transfer pricing report indicated that the arm’s length (inter-quartile) range of gross margins earned by the selected comparable companies in 2012 was between 35 %-46 %, with a median of 43 %. Therefore, the 64 % gross margin earned by ICO did not fall within the arm’s length inter-quartile range. At the time Customs conducted its valuation audit, it was established that，in this particular case, ICO had not made any transfer pricing adjustments in this regard.
Issue for Determination
10. Does the transfer pricing report, supplied in this case, provide information which enables Customs to conclude whether or not the price actually paid or payable for the imported goods is influenced by the relationship of the parties under Article 1 of the Agreement?
Analysis
11. Under Article 1 of the Agreement, a transaction value is acceptable as the Customs value when the buyer and the seller are not related, or if related, the relationship does not influence the price. Where the buyer and seller are related, Article 1.2 of the Agreement provides two ways of establishing the acceptability of the transaction value when Customs have doubts concerning the price: (1) the circumstances surrounding the sale shall be examined to determine whether the relationship influenced the price (Article 1.2 (a)); or (2) the importer demonstrates that the value closely approximates one of three test values (Article 1.2 (b )).
12. In this case, as indicated in paragraph 6, the importer did not provide test values therefore Customs examined the circumstances surrounding the sale.
13. The Interpretative Note to Article 1.2 of the Agreement provides that in examining the circumstances surrounding the sale, “the customs administrations should be prepared to examine relevant aspects of the transaction, including the way in which the buyer and the seller organize their commercial relations and the way in which the price in question was arrived at, in order to determine whether the relationship influenced the price.”
14. When examining the circumstances surrounding the sale concerning companies using Resale Price Method, a comparison of the gross margin of the company in question with the gross margin of comparable companies could indicate whether or not the declared price had been settled in a manner consistent with the normal pricing practices of the industry.
15. Based on the functional analysis, there was no significant difference between ICO and all eight comparable companies because these comparables:
-are all locate in country I;
-perform similar distribution functions, assume similar risks and do not employ any valuable intangible assets, which are similar to ICO;
-import comparable products similarly manufactured in country X ;
In addition, an adequate level of product comparability was observed and these comparable companies are deemed to be suitable for Customs valuation purposes.
16. According to the transfer pricing report, the arm’s length inter-quartile range of the gross margin earned by the comparable companies was between 35 %-46 % with a median of 43 %. However, in 2012, ICO earned a gross margin of 64 % which was much higher than the normal gross margins of comparable companies in this industry. It should also be noted that the luxury bag market of importing country I was competitive, so that the operating profit and expenses of ICO should be similar to those of the comparable companies given that there was no substantial difference between ICO and the eight comparable companies. Therefore ICO’s high gross margin in 2012 was not commensurate with its functions, assets and risks.
17. Thus, by virtue of ICO earning a higher margin, and considering ICO has not made any compensating adjustments, Customs arrived at the conclusion that the import price was not settled in a manner consistent with the normal pricing practices of the industry in question. The Customs value of goods imported in 2012 had been declared at a lower price and should be re-determined accordingly by application of the alternative methods of valuation in a sequential order.
Conclusion
18. In examining the circumstances surrounding the sale between ICO and XCO under the provisions of Article 1.2 (a) of the Agreement through the review of the transfer pricing report, Customs concluded that the declared import price was not settled in a manner consistent with the normal pricing practices of the industry and thus had been influenced by the relationship between the buyer and seller. Therefore, the Customs value should be determined by application of the alternative methods of appraisement in a sequential order.
19. It should be noted that the use of a transfer pricing report as a possible basis for examining the circumstances surrounding the sale should be considered on a case by case basis as specified in Commentary 23.1.
供稿（圖）：關稅司、深圳海關
編輯、發佈：高揚